[trailer] Avengers! My day is made

EverythingsTentative wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Ideally? Ms. Marvel, Wonder Man, Black Panther, a decent version of the Fantastic Four, and some Kree/Skrull warring.

I don't think you will see the Fantastic Four in an Avengers film anytime soon because Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to them. Same reason you will not see Spider Man is because Sony owns the rights to his movies.

That's why I prefaced it with "ideally"

Realistically, I'd love to see Wonder Man make it in, but his origin and conversion from good to evil to good again is a bit too much to shoehorn into an ensemble movie. Maybe in Iron Man 4.

jonnypolite wrote:

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ga56TMjO1qk4722o1_1280.jpg)

Avengers Disassemble!

That Hulk will give me nightmares.

The eyes are a little high...

Foreheads are overrated.

ChrisLTD wrote:

The eyes are a little high...

Yeah.... So are the other three guys.

jonnypolite wrote:

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ga56TMjO1qk4722o1_1280.jpg)

It looks like Hulk spent too much time near the Dark Crystal.

IMAGE(http://www.dvdizzy.com/images/d-f/darkcrystal-03.jpg)

He looks more like a Greendale Hulk Being to me.

El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:

Whedon would like more female heroes next time around.http://www.slashfilm.com/joss-whedon-suggests-females-avengers-2/

I hope they pick the Wasp, because Wasp means Ant-Man, and Ant-Man means Ultron.

There's been an Ant-Man movie at different levels of pre production for awhile. Simon Pegg was supposed to be writing it last i heard.

Edgar Wright, actually.

ranalin wrote:
El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:

Whedon would like more female heroes next time around.http://www.slashfilm.com/joss-whedon-suggests-females-avengers-2/

I hope they pick the Wasp, because Wasp means Ant-Man, and Ant-Man means Ultron.

There's been an Ant-Man movie at different levels of pre production for awhile. Simon Pegg was supposed to be writing it last i heard.

Actually it's Edgar Wright (his co-writer and director for the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy). However, it currently looks like Wright will be filming The World's End this year, so Ant-Man won't be made until that's done.

Seen. Laughed. I'm glad I didn't know Whedon was involved (where by "was involved" I mean "ran the show"). I would've had higher expectations. I entered with relatively high expectations due to the opinions of a number of trusted internet personalities, and was a little disappointed. Maybe I missed some of the nuance, maybe I wasn't in the right mood, or maybe The Avengers is an uneven mix of tepid, formulaic plotting and ambitious characterization. I remember being disappointed by Serenity, too, though this abated by that movie's end.

Joss Whedon is definitely more suited to long-term story-telling via a television show or comic book. Characters are, after all, what he does best.

With that in mind, Marvel also handed him a basic story concept that he carried through with. So even Marvel wanted something simple focused more on the characters, which simply means whoever is running Marvel's film division really gets it. They understand that it's all about the characters in these films, which is perhaps why the Marvel films are really the best of what they offer (and why X-Men First Class was the best of the X-Men films).

ccesarano wrote:

Joss Whedon is definitely more suited to long-term story-telling via a television show or comic book. Characters are, after all, what he does best.

With that in mind, Marvel also handed him a basic story concept that he carried through with. So even Marvel wanted something simple focused more on the characters, which simply means whoever is running Marvel's film division really gets it. They understand that it's all about the characters in these films, which is perhaps why the Marvel films are really the best of what they offer (and why X-Men First Class was the best of the X-Men films).

Do you think Avengers was better than the DK? Or just that Marvel movies in general are better than DC movies in general?

I'm very biased in that regard, as Batman is the only property I like in any way as much as Marvel. I can't really place it. Maybe a lot of it is an aesthetic thing, as a lot of the sci-fi and alien elements of DC look goofy whereas Marvel simply looks dated at times.

As for the films, well, I liked Batman Begins, but don't think The Dark Knight is as amazing as everyone else seems to feel. Hell, the entire third act feels like it falls apart to me, but that's because I more prefer a Watchmen style of conclusion (a DC property I enjoy, but doesn't seem to really count as much). I like Nolan's Batman universe well enough, though I'd prefer it not be so tied to reality. I'm not completely sold on the overall story they're trying to tell. I'm also not sold on Nolan wanting his universe to have nothing to do with other DC properties. I say f*ck Yeah, Justice League. Sure thing. Why not.

My issues with Superman Returns were mostly due to me not thinking Superman is that great of a super hero and just not digging on Lois Lane. That, and the film would have been better if it had a sad ending, but Superman pulling some random Deus Ex Machina out of his rectum and saving the day is purely Superman style and shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Just part of that whole "not digging Superman" thing.

So really, I couldn't tell you if DC is doing anything right or wrong. I even thought Green Lantern was on par in terms of quality with the original Spider-man, but everyone's got such rose-tinted glasses (and maybe I'm just not familiar enough with Green Lantern) that they think it was some steaming pile of regurgitated soylent green.

All I know is Marvel comics are more my interest, and even the properties I know nothing about (such as the ones that weren't Saturday morning cartoons I kept up with (I didn't keep up with any of The Avengers)) are good. I'm hoping that, if Fox insists on keeping film rights to X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil, they learn from Marvel's hits and create more film along the lines of First Class rather than Sony's seemingly botched attempt at a new Spider-Man (which should have been handled like The Incredible Hulk, telling the origin in the opening credits and moving on).

We saw this movie last weekend and I really liked it! Maybe I've just been starved for more Joss dialog...

While I sort of agree with the above criticism that it was ambitious characterization and a pedestrian plot, that's actually what I liked best about it. It seems that for a lot of modern day superhero movies, trying to do something interesting or different with the plot comes at the expense of characterization and too often they substitute action sequences for plot. Overly long action sequences and needlessly complex plot are recipes for me to tune out of a movie, but I'd watch two hours of just this Avenger group bantering with no fighting or plot at all.

In fact, yeah, Joss should make a movie about Tony Stark and Bruce Banner hanging out in R&D Candyland. Bonus points if they get drunk and start prank calling Steve Rogers.

In fact, yeah, Joss should make a movie about Tony Stark and Bruce Banner hanging out in R&D Candyland. Bonus points if they get drunk and start prank calling Steve Rogers.

Heh, I'd watch that movie. Especially if Cap has more of his "I couldn't wait for technology" moments.

Please don't flame me for not spoilering that =)

fangblackbone wrote:
In fact, yeah, Joss should make a movie about Tony Stark and Bruce Banner hanging out in R&D Candyland. Bonus points if they get drunk and start prank calling Steve Rogers.

Heh, I'd watch that movie. Especially if Cap has more of his "I couldn't wait for technology" moments.

++

Demyx wrote:

We saw this movie last weekend and I really liked it! Maybe I've just been starved for more Joss dialog...

While I sort of agree with the above criticism that it was ambitious characterization and a pedestrian plot, that's actually what I liked best about it. It seems that for a lot of modern day superhero movies, trying to do something interesting or different with the plot comes at the expense of characterization and too often they substitute action sequences for plot. Overly long action sequences and needlessly complex plot are recipes for me to tune out of a movie, but I'd watch two hours of just this Avenger group bantering with no fighting or plot at all.

In fact, yeah, Joss should make a movie about Tony Stark and Bruce Banner hanging out in R&D Candyland. Bonus points if they get drunk and start prank calling Steve Rogers.

In terms of action, either I've reached an age where action without meaning has become boring, or there has become a reliance on action for the sake of action without providing an emotional conflict to make it interesting.

The first time I noticed this, I think, was watching the Matrix Revolutions car chase on television one day. It was cool at first, but it kept going...and going...and going. At some point I stopped caring about the technical achievements of the director and the technology and just wanted to get on with it.

This is not exclusive to the Matrix films, but seems to carry over to a lot of films these days.

Do not read if you're worried about Iron Man 3 spoilers, but...

Spoiler:

It's looking like the Iron Patriot suit shows up. Which is odd, because Marvel don't own Norman Osborn as a character

ccesarano:

It's the Hong Kong effect. It wasn't too long ago that HK limped along with plenty of plots whose main action sequences were along the lines of "I don't like your face! Let's fight!" That's the unfortunate film tradition Kung Fu Panda makes fun of in the opening animated sequence of Po's dream, "Enough talk, let's fight!"

Both Matrix Revolution and Reloaded are plagued with overlong action shots that don't have any real meaning. The Matrix, however, does not. It's very tightly sequenced and edited. Each second of each fight has characterization and plot. I know because I've watched it over and over and over many times.

Avengers strays into the gratuitous only ever so slightly. The second Thor-Loki fight sequence didn't have much of a point that couldn't be made better or tighter. Hawkeye's Crowning Moment of Awesome action scenes were kind of lame; the bow technique was unconvincing. Black Widow doesn't have a characteristic "action identity." Beyond these slight failings, the action sequences were brilliantly done.

[anti-superhero comic rant]

Spoiler:

I'm actually a little frustrated that DC and Marvel don't have the business infrastructure to introduce new characters, nor do they encourage new talent to forge for themselves and create new independent worlds (that will not be joined - ever).

It's sort of there already. Different artists' take on Batman are so divergent they might as well have been different characters altogether. If they were allowed to be different characters, all these artists might have created a large roster of Batman-archetype heroes who nonetheless are distinct characters in their own right.

Avengers succeeds because the material is new to movies, relatively. What happens going forward?
[/rant]

I was under the impression that new characters get created all the time. That's not the case?

My first double-post! I feel so...so, emotional, you know?

LarryC wrote:

Both Matrix Revolution and Reloaded are plagued with overlong action shots that don't have any real meaning. The Matrix, however, does not. It's very tightly sequenced and edited. Each second of each fight has characterization and plot. I know because I've watched it over and over and over many times.

I'm sure it's not the first incident of this but the podracing scene in Star Wars Episode 1 is a classic example, and I completely agree that a number of the sequences in Reloaded and Revolutions would've benefited from some tighter editing.

Damn you people. Now I have a blog post to go write about how the big ass battle in Avatar where the tree went down would have been so much better if the General weren't some stupid Captain Planet villain.

I'll quote it here when I'm done if it's still relevant to the topic at hand.

ccesarano wrote:

Damn you people. Now I have a blog post to go write about how the big ass battle in Avatar where the tree went down would have been so much better if the General weren't some stupid Captain Planet villain.

I'll quote it here when I'm done if it's still relevant to the topic at hand.

Or, write a blog post about how Avatar was bad in general, due mostly to the Captain Planet knock-off villains as well as horrible writing ("Unobtainium"? Really?)

WipEout wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

Damn you people. Now I have a blog post to go write about how the big ass battle in Avatar where the tree went down would have been so much better if the General weren't some stupid Captain Planet villain.

I'll quote it here when I'm done if it's still relevant to the topic at hand.

Or, write a blog post about how Avatar was bad in general, due mostly to the Captain Planet knock-off villains as well as horrible writing ("Unobtainium"? Really?)

Or write a post about aetius' biggest pet peeve: the pointless human ground assault during the big bombing run at the end. What were they planning to do down there? Catch the giant bomb after it dropped out of the gunship?

WipEout wrote:

("Unobtainium"? Really?)

Bad writing or a nice wink at the TVTropers? You be the judge!

shoptroll wrote:
WipEout wrote:

("Unobtainium"? Really?)

Bad writing or a nice wink at the TVTropers? You be the judge!

Apparently the term goes back to aerospace engineers in the 50's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtai...

Tanglebones wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
WipEout wrote:

("Unobtainium"? Really?)

Bad writing or a nice wink at the TVTropers? You be the judge!

Apparently the term goes back to aerospace engineers in the 50's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtai...

Except that in engineering, the term stems from the fact that the element they theorized was literally unobtainable. In Avatar, they obtained the material, so it couldn't be "unobtainium," just bad writing.

/troll

ccesarano wrote:

In terms of action, either I've reached an age where action without meaning has become boring, or there has become a reliance on action for the sake of action without providing an emotional conflict to make it interesting.

The first time I noticed this, I think, was watching the Matrix Revolutions car chase on television one day. It was cool at first, but it kept going...and going...and going. At some point I stopped caring about the technical achievements of the director and the technology and just wanted to get on with it.

This is not exclusive to the Matrix films, but seems to carry over to a lot of films these days.

That mirrors my experiences and perspectives so closely it's nearly creepy.